Was the Mexican War an Exercise in American Imperialism?

I personally agree with the "yes" article. We did wage a war on Mexico for greedy reasons. We wanted land, "Manifest Destiny."
My personal reasons may be getting in the way, but I thought that the "yes" article was better. It states key points. "Manifest Destiny," we wanted land, and Mexico was in our way. They were not selling us the land, so we decided to take it with force. When we took half of Mexico's land, Mexico never fully recovered, so was that really necessary. We seriously hurt another nation.

"Did the Election of 1828 Represent a Democratic Revolt of the People?"

I think the "yes" article makes a better arguement. The "no" article tries to compare local and national voting statistics when back then they were completely different. Back then the states where mainly independent, they were not a real union. So, when it came to local elections the people would vote more than in a national election because the local issues were more important to them. Also, the "no" article doesn't even try to explain about the 50% increase in the voter turnout between 1824 and 1828.

So, since, I didn't really agree with the "no" article I thought the "yes" article was better.

Yes or No to the Constitution

I think the "No" article got its point accross better. This article brought up some very interesting points, like, how the Constitution was written by mostly men of wealth, in land, slaves, manufacturing, or shipping, that half of them had money loaned out at interest, and that forty of the fifty-five held government bonds. "The makers had some direct economic interest for establishing a strong central governtment: the manufacturerss needed protective tariffs; the money lenders wanted to stop the use of paper money to pay off debts; the land speculators wanted protection as they invaded Indian lands; slaveowners neeed federal security against slave revolts and runaways; bondholders wanted a government able to rais money by nationwide taxation, to pay off those bonds."
So, the Constitution was written by the rich and supposed to provide a government for everyone, but it left out the women, slaves, indentured servents, and men without property. In fact women were left out of the Constitution, it stated that all MEN are created equal. Then the slaves were also left out, they were considered property. Indentured servents were considered property until they were free then they were men without property. Finally men wihout property were not mentioned because you had to own property to vote.
Now, the article also talks about Shays rebellion, which was started for what I think are good reasons. A veteran was put in debtors prison, and selling farmers cattle for less then their worth to take their land, and lastly he was not paid for his work in the army and was now about to be put in debtors prison.
Also, this article talks about the first amendment and how it was broken with the Sedition Act just seven years after the amendment became part of the Constitution.

Federalist Papers Number 10

Trying to get rid of the factions, conflicts within a nation, by two ways: by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, liberty is what keeps factions going just like air keeps fire going, which is why they said they could take away liberty to get rid of faction.

A republic has an advantage over democracy because it controlls the effects of a faction. This way when factious leaders stir something up, they can only do something in their state not the whole Union. A republic reduces the different political parties, the fewer the parties the easier it is to get a majority, making it harder to create a faction.

Should Columbus Day continue to be celebrated in the U.S.?

I agree with the second article, the no article. Partially because I never agreed with Columbus day, but also because I think that it makes more valuable points. Columbus did not discover the Americas, they were discovered long before he came around. Then the article goes on to talk about how Columbus and his men acted, and states "No wonder these protions of U.S. history are left out of school books." I am just starting to learn about the slavery, the forced religious conversions and every thing else that Columbus and his men did. Does it really seem right to have a holiday honoring a man who did these things because he discovered the Americas, even though he really did not? I do not think that this is right.

Which Colony Would I Live In?

I would have lived in the Middle Colonies because they are right next to the bay. This creates constant imports and exports which means a strong economy. A strong economy helps decrease the unemployment rate. Also, the Middle Colonies didn't depend on slavery as much as the Southern Colonies. The Middle Colonies were not as strict as the New England Colonies and also had more religious toleration.